Where, in the Constitution, does it give the President of the United States, statutory authority to delay implementation of a law or a portion of a law once it is passed? In my understanding of the Constitution of the United States, the legislative branch makes laws and the executive branch carries out the laws. Therefore, as that holds true, because the constitution states it, where does the executive have the gall to rewrite or delay any law? He does not.
Congress is being walked on, bullied by this president, bought off or a combination thereof. Barack Obama walks on, under and over the authority of “WE, THE PEOPLE”, of this United States. He works for the people, the people do not work for him. A righteous president would look to the Constitution for his authority, not usurp authority. A level headed president would recognize his limited power, be grateful for it and work hard to help the country. He would not fill the pockets of elites.
In short, Barack Obama wants to be someone he will never be, an elitist with an unlimited power structure around him bulldozing his way through, in bully-like fashion, anything that gets in his way. This actually sounds like a minor version of Vladimir Putin.
I would not want to be taught constitutional law by President Obama. Goodness knows, he would mix the law with marxist tendencies and pass it off as true doctrine. The end product would be a corrupt student, unless he was sharp enough to realize he was being taught garbage under the guise of a prestigious law school name and the Constitution of the United States. What a shame! JIM
Opinion Piece of The Wall Street Journal
February 10, 2014 7:40pm ET
Another day, another lawless exemption, once again for business.
‘ObamaCare” is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Act not least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.
ObamaCare requires businesses with 50 or more workers to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, but last summer the Treasury offered a year-long delay until 2015 despite having no statutory authorization. Like the individual mandate, the employer decree is central to ObamaCare’s claim of universal coverage, but employers said the new labor costs—and the onerous reporting and tax-enforcement rules—would damage job creation and the economy.
Liberals insisted that such arguments were false if not beneath contempt, but then all of a sudden the White House implicitly endorsed the other side. Now the new delay arrives amid a furious debate about jobs after a damning Congressional Budget Office report last week, only this time with liberals celebrating ObamaCare’s supposed benefits to the job market.
Well, which is it? Either ObamaCare is ushering in a worker’s paradise, in which case by the White House’s own logic exempting businesses from its ministrations is harming employees. Or else the mandate really is leading business to cut back on hiring, hours and shifting workers to part-time as the evidence in the real economy suggests.
Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.
The new rule also relaxes the mandate for certain occupations and industries that were at particular risk for disruption, like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, “As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015.” So the law may be suspended indefinitely if the White House feels like it.
By now ObamaCare’s proliferating delays, exemptions and administrative retrofits are too numerous to count, most of them of dubious legality. The text of the Affordable Care Act specifically says when the mandate must take effect—”after December 31, 2013″—and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms.
Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration’s cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage.
Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite.